Cost-effective safety treatments for low-volume roads.

Details

• Creators:
  Schrum, K.D. ; Lechtenberg, K.A. ; Stolle, C.S. ; Faller, R.K. ; Sicking, D.L.
• Corporate Creators:
  Midwest Roadside Safety Facility
• Corporate Contributors:
  United States. Federal Highway Administration
• Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Low volume roads
  • Traffic crashes
  • Culverts
  • Slopes
  • Ditches
  • Driveways
  • Bridges
  • Trees
  • Benefit cost analysis
  • Roadside hazards
  More +
• Publication/ Report Number:
  TRP-03-222-12
• Resource Type:
  Tech Report
• Geographical Coverage:
  Nebraska
• Edition:
  Final report.
• Corporate Publisher:
  Midwest States Regional Pooled Fund Program ; Nebraska. Dept. of Roads
• Abstract:
  The majority of roadside safety guidance pertains to high-volume roads. Very little guidance exists to assist engineers in ; treating common obstacles found alongside low-volume roads. In general, it is assumed that low traffic volumes can effectively ; mitigate the risks associated with vehicle impacts into fixed objects and other geometric features to a point where they do not ; significantly increase the accident costs relative to high-volume roads. However, a single crash on a low-volume road may result ; in a fatality or a severe injury, effectively making low-volume roads competitive in severity scale with high-volume roads. As a ; result, the possibility of a fatal or severe injury crash needs to be mitigated on low-volume roads. ; Common roadside features were observed in a field study and included culverts, trees, slopes, ditches, and bridges. A ; probability-based encroachment tool, known as the Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP), was used to determine impact ; frequencies and severities for each feature. Treatment options, like removing the fixed object or installing W-beam guardrail, were ; considered for each feature. Finally, acceptable ranges in traffic volume were recommended for each safety treatment option. In ; these recommendations, the “do nothing” option was often considered to be the most cost-effective safety treatment for the ; existing configuration. However, this was not always the case.
  More +
• Format:
  PDF
• Funding:
  SPR-3 (017) Supplement #35
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/25590/dot_25590_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 4.38 MB]
• Collection(s):
  US Transportation Collection
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:9dce4b7cd49d55f97c31f25520be27520564078e9b1a3eef095763ec90ff030efde1768fcb0ff208fe83e8ecfb09885eaa305182f61b425e68d83bb4ebe32fab